HDFC Bank’s review finds no basis for concerns related to Atanu Chakraborty’s resignation

HDFC Bank said on June 26 that an external legal review found no evidence of the concerns raised by Atanu Chakraborty in his resignation letter after examining thousands of documents for three months and interviewing independent directors and senior management.

The private sector lender announced its findings in a regulatory filing to the BSE and the national stock exchange. The review was conducted by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati of the United States and Wadia Ghandy & Co. of India.

HDFC Bank had announced a review on March 24, 2026 to assess whether the concerns raised in Chakraborty’s resignation letter were supported by the document. It also examined whether he had formally recorded a disagreement and, if so, whether it had been dealt with by the bank.

The assignment covered two years before Chakraborty’s resignation. The law firms processed the board and committee meeting minutes, agendas, related messages and other documents and information.

They also held individual discussions with all independent directors, including the chairmen of the relevant board committees and the president and CEO and senior management in charge of certain control and assurance functions.

According to a statement included in the bank’s filing, « the legal review was conducted over a three-month period and included a review of thousands of documents and interviews with independent directors and several members of senior management. »

The filing said Chakraborty was repeatedly asked by HDFC Bank and external law firms to attend an interview as part of the exercise. In the end, however, there was no interaction.

« The bank and the outside law firms repeatedly requested that Chakraborty speak with the outside law firms as part of the legal review, but in the end no interview with Chakraborty took place, » the statement said.

After a review, the law firms determined that the documents examined or interviews conducted did not support the concerns contained in Chakraborty’s statement.

« Having now completed an extensive legal review, the outside law firms found that Mr. Chakraborty’s statement and its implications were not substantiated by the record and witness interviews, » the companies said.

The audit found that the minutes of the meetings attended by Chakraborty went through a comprehensive drafting, review and approval process. According to the law firms, this process allowed him to formally record any « events and practices » that he believed were consistent with his personal values ​​and ethics.

However, the companies said they could find no current material in the minutes or agendas of the board and its committees to support such concerns. Nor did they find any such evidence of communications regarding the review and approval of minutes of meetings attended by Chakraborty.

According to the application, the witness interviews conducted during the exercise did not confirm the claim either.

The review looked separately at Chakraborty’s references to the Dubai issue in his public statements after the resignation. The outside firms said they found no contemporaneous evidence that he had raised concerns about his personal values ​​and ethics in the matter.

Nor did they find any information to suggest that he disagreed with the decisions of the government or the relevant government committees related to the Dubai matter or other issues dealt with by those bodies.

« While Mr. Chakraborty referred to the Dubai matter in public statements following his resignation, no contemporaneous evidence was found that he expressed concern about his personal values ​​and ethics, or that he disagreed with the decisions of the Board or the relevant Board committees on the Dubai matter (or on other matters handled by the Board and the relevant law firms).

The report has been submitted to the Board of Directors of HDFC Bank after completion of the review.

« In summary, the contemporaneous evidence reviewed was inconsistent with Mr. Chakraborty’s statement, and a review by outside law firms found no basis for the statement, » the companies concluded.

The exchange application did not include Chakraborty’s response to the results of the legal review.